Students’ Perceived Impacts of Blended Learning on Writing Development

Teaching and learning writing involves developing students’ linguistic and communicative competence; however, educators continue to face challenges in identifying approaches that effectively support writing development. While various instructional models such as teacher-centred teaching, online learning, and blended learning have been explored, the specific impacts of blended learning on students’ writing performance remain insufficiently studied. This research therefore examines students’ perceptions of learning writing through a blended learning approach, focusing on four key areas: collaborative exchange, self-efficacy, online discussion, and face-to-face interaction. A qualitative research design was employed to collect, analyse, and interpret data. Through purposive sampling, six students who had experienced writing instruction in a blended learning environment were selected. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain insight into their experiences. Findings show that students perceived blended learning as enhancing collaborative exchange, allowing them to share ideas, seek clarification, and support one another more effectively. They also reported improved self-efficacy, as blended activities and regular feedback increased their confidence in expressing ideas and completing writing tasks. In addition, students valued online discussion platforms, which offered greater flexibility, accessibility, and comfort when engaging with writing-related content. At the same time, they emphasised the importance of face-to-face interaction, particularly for receiving clearer explanations, observing non-verbal cues, and strengthening lecturer–student rapport. Overall, the results suggest that blended learning provides a flexible, supportive, and conducive environment that positively influences students’ writing development. The study offers insights that may guide educators in refining blended learning practices for more effective writing instruction.

Blended Learning Approach, ESL Writing, Student Perceptions, Writing Development, Online Learning

1. Alshammari, R. (2023). The impact of blended learning on EFL students’ writing performance and writing anxiety. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1451–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11253-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cheng, H.-F., & Lai, C. (2023). Peer collaboration in blended writing tasks: Insights from learners’ perspectives. System, 112, 102993. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2023). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2022). A simple method to assess sample sufficiency in qualitative research. Field Methods, 34(3), 240–250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hidayati, K. H., & Sugeng, B. (2023). Blended learning to enhance EFL students’ academic writing: Students’ engagement and challenges. Journal of Language and Education, 9(1), 102–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Huang, Y.-M., & Boney, M. (2022). Improving EFL learners’ writing self-efficacy through blended feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(6), 1123–1138. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2022). Intrinsic case study methodology in qualitative research. Qualitative Research Journal, 22(4), 450–462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ibrahim, N., & Hassan, R. (2023). Students’ perceptions of blended learning environments: Clarity, support, and interaction. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 6781–6801. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jamshed, S. (2023). Qualitative research and qualitative interviews: An updated review. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Lim, C., & Wang, T. (2022). Balancing online and face-to-face instruction: Students’ preferences in blended language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 19–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Miftah, M. Z. (2024). Students’ perceptions of WhatsApp-based discussion in blended learning writing courses. Asian EFL Journal, 26(2), 55–80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2023). Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research: Updated strategies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., & Duan, N. (2023). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 50(1), 150–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Queen, A., & Klenke-Boush, E. (2024). Conducting semi-structured interviews in education research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 37(2), 210–225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Rahimi, M., & Fathi, J. (2023). Online interaction and learner engagement in blended EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Wang, M., & He, T. (2022). Blended learning and writing performance in tertiary ESL classes: Students’ perceptions and outcomes. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(7), 1476–1495. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Zou, D., & Xie, H. (2022). Collaborative learning in blended EFL writing environments: Effects and perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(5), 1304–1320. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests